Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Bengel Commentary - Romans 1:4 - 1:4
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Rom 1:4. Τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ, who was definitively marked as [declared to be, Engl. Vers.] the Son of God) He uses τοῦ again, not καὶ or δὲ. When the article is repeated, it forms an epitasis. [end.] In many passages, where both natures of the Saviour are mentioned, the human nature is put first, because the divine was most distinctly proved to all, only after His resurrection from the dead. [Hence it is, that it is frequently repeated, He, and not any other. Act 9:20; Act 9:22, etc.-V. g.] The participle ὁρισθέντος expresses much more than ἀφωρισμένος in Rom 1:1; for one, ἀφορίζεται, out of a number of other persons, but a person, ὁρίζεται, as the one and only person, Act 10:42. In that well-known passage, Psa 2:7, חק [the decree] is the same as ὁρισμὸς; [the decree implying] that the Father has most determinately said, Thou art My Son. The ἀπόδειξις, the approving of the Son, in regard to men, follows in the train of this ὁρισμόν.-Act 2:22. Paul particularly extols the glory of the Son of God, when writing to those to whom he had been unable to preach it face to face. Comp. Heb 10:8, etc., note.-ἐν δυνάμει, in (or with) power), most powerfully, most fully; as when the sun shines in δυνάμει, in his strength.-Rev 1:16.-κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, according to the spirit of holiness) The word קדוש ἃγιος, holy, when the subject under discussion refers to God, not only denotes that blameless rectitude in acting, which distinguishes Him, but the Godhead itself, or, to speak with greater propriety, the divinity, or the excellence of the Divine nature. Hence ἁγιωσύνη has a kind of middle sense between ἁγιότητα and ἁγιασμόν.-Comp. Heb 12:10; Heb 12:14. [“His holiness,” ἁγιότης; “without ἁγιασμός sanctification, no man shall see the Lord.”] So that there are, as it were, three degrees, sanctification (sanctificatio), sanctity (or sanctimony, “sanctimonia,”) holiness (sanctitas) Holiness itself (sanctitas) is ascribed to God the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. And since the Holy Spirit is not mentioned in this passage, but the Spirit of holiness (sanctity, sanctimoniæ), we must inquire farther, what that expression, which is evidently a singular one, denotes. The name Spirit is expressly, and that too, very often, given to the Holy Spirit; but God is also said to be a Spirit; and the Lord, Jesus Christ, is called Spirit, in antithesis indeed to the letter, 2Co 3:17. But in the strict sense, it is of use to compare with the idea here the fact, that the antithesis flesh and spirit occurs, as in this passage, so rather frequently, in passages speaking of Christ, 1Ti 3:16; 1Pe 3:18. And in these passages that is called Spirit, whatever belongs to Christ, independently of the flesh [assumed through His descent from David, Luk 1:35.-V. g.], although that flesh was pure and holy; also whatever superior to flesh belongs to Him, owing to His generation by the Father, who has sanctified Him, Joh 10:36; in short, the Godhead itself. For, as in this passage, flesh and spirit, so at chap. Rom 9:5, flesh and Godhead stand in contradistinction to each other. This spirit is not called the spirit of holiness (sanctitatis ἁγιότητος), which is the peculiar and solemn appellation of the Holy Spirit, with whom, however, Jesus was most abundantly filled and anointed, Luk 1:35; Luk 4:1; Luk 4:18; Joh 3:34; Act 10:38; but in this one passage alone, the expression used is the spirit of sanctity (sanctimoniæ ἁγιωσύνης), in order that there may be at once implied the efficacy of that holiness (sanctitatis ἁγιότητος) or divinity, of which the resurrection of the Saviour was both a necessary consequence, and which it most powerfully illustrates; and so, that spiritual and holy, or divine power of Jesus Christ glorified, who, however, has still retained the spiritual body. Before the resurrection, the Spirit was concealed under the flesh; after the resurrection the Spirit of sanctity [sanctimoniæ] entirely concealed the flesh, although He did not lay aside the flesh; but all that is carnal (which was also without sin), Luk 24:39. In respect of the former [His state before the resurrection], He once used frequently to call Himself the Son of Man; in respect of the latter [His state after the resurrection; and the spirit of sanctity, by which He rose again], He is celebrated as the Son of God. His [manifested or] conspicuous state [as presented to men’s view before His resurrection] was modified in various ways. At the day of judgment, His glory as the Son of God shall appear, as also His body in the highest degree glorified. See also Joh 6:63, note.-ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, by means of the resurrection of the dead) Ἐκ not only denotes time, but the connection of things (for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is at once the source and the object of our faith, Act 17:31). The verb ἀνίστημι is also used without a preposition, as in Herodotus, ἀναστάντες τῶν βαθρῶν: therefore, ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν might be taken in this passage for the resurrection from the dead. But it is in reality taken in a more pregnant sense; for it is intimated, that the resurrection of all is intimately connected with the resurrection of Christ. Comp. Act 4:2; Act 23:6; Act 26:23. Artemonius conjectures that the reading should be ἐξ ἀναστάσεως ἐκ νεκρῶν Part I., cap. 41, p. 214, etc., and this is his construction of the passage: περὶ [Rom 1:3] ἐξαναστάσεως ἐκ νεκρῶν τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ κ.τ.λ. concerning the resurrection of His Son from the dead, etc. But, I. There is a manifest Apposition, concerning His Son, Jesus Christ; therefore, the words, which come between parenthetically, are all construed in an unbroken connection with one another. II. There is an obvious antithesis: ΤΟΥ γενομένου ΕΚ ΚΑΤΑ: ΤΟΥ ὁρισθέντος-ΚΑΤΑ-ΕΞ.-III. ἀνάστασις, not ἐξανάστασις, if we are to have regard to Paul’s style, is properly applied to Christ; but ἐξαανάστασις to Christians; Comp. ἤγειρε, ἐξεγερεῖ, 1Co 6:14. Artemonius objects that Christ was even previously the Son of God, Luk 3:22; Joh 10:36; Act 2:22; Act 10:38. We answer, Paul does not infer the Sonship itself, but the ὁρισμὸν, the [declaration] definitive marking of the Sonship by the resurrection. And in support of this point, Chrysostom compares with this the following passages: Joh 2:19; Joh 8:28; Mat 12:39; and the preaching of the apostles follows close upon this ὁρισμόν, Luk 24:47. Therefore, this mode of mentioning the resurrection is exceedingly well adapted to this introduction, as Gal 1:1.